Second Hand Smoke is too bad for you

The BBQ Pit
101

[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
I agree with UncleBeer in that you’ve lost all sense of proportion here. Walking through a cloud of cigarette smoke will have absolutely no effect on the average healthy person due to the cilia in your lungs.

So, relax! Evolution took care of the problem before cigarettes were invented. You should be fine.
[/QUOTE]

You sir, are an idiot. Although the cilia do screen out some of the large particles, they can get overloaded, and they don’t screen out stuff at the molecular level. If they did, then even smokers wouldn’t get lung cancer. :rolleyes:

True- an occasional small stray whiff of SHS isn’t very dangerous. It’s being exposed to it day after day that’s really dangerous. Your co-workers, your kids, your parents, dudes eating in the same restaurant, and so forth. Even in the outdoors, the smoke can get pretty bad.

102

Along with smoking and chewing tobacco and betel quids! From that abstract, it’s impossible to tell if they looked at men who only used nasal snuff, without using oral tobacco and betel products. (I strongly suspect they didn’t.) If they didn’t, then this study doesn’t tell us anything about the danger of using nasal snuff, any more than a study of lung cancer rates among people who used breath mints and also smoked would tell us about the danger of using breath mints.

103

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
You sir, are an idiot. Although the cilia do screen out some of the large particles, they can get overloaded, and they don’t screen out stuff at the molecular level. If they did, then even smokers wouldn’t get lung cancer. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

Try rereading my post, dumbass. I said, “Walking through a cloud of cigarette smoke will have absolutely no effect on the average healthy person due to the cilia in your lungs.” This was in direct response to CandidGamera’s assertion that “even one molecule is too much.” I was simply pointing out that he has a natural defense system against the apparent minor amount of SHS he’s going to encounter.

104

[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
Try rereading my post, dumbass. I said, “Walking through a cloud of cigarette smoke will have absolutely no effect on the average healthy person due to the cilia in your lungs.” This was in direct response to CandidGamera’s assertion that “even one molecule is too much.” I was simply pointing out that he has a natural defense system against the apparent minor amount of SHS he’s going to encounter.
[/QUOTE]

CILIA DON’T BLOCK STUFF AT THE MOLECULAR LEVEL, DUMBASS.

105

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
What does that mean? Do you also oppose legislation creating criminal sanctions or fines for any offense whatsoever, since it “usurps the freedom of others”?
[/quote]

I see you’re in no danger of stumbling upon CandidGamera’s lost sense of proportion either. There are many laws which are necessary to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” These are legimately constituted. Banning an activity, without outlawing the very product which makes that activity possible do not meet the test. They’re hypocritical garbage designed to legislate away the legitimate freedoms of others in order to accomodate one’s own wants.

106

Cell biology for Pro Wrestling fans! Great!

Oooooh, here comes the Loop of Henle! Look out, Intestinator!

107

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
CILIA DON’T BLOCK STUFF AT THE MOLECULAR LEVEL, DUMBASS.
[/QUOTE]

Christ, you’re a dumbfuck.

Cigarette smoke particles are not just single molecules floating around out there, and are in fact big enough to be picked up by the cilia in small enough doses.

Cite

108

[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
Try rereading my post, dumbass. I said, “Walking through a cloud of cigarette smoke will have absolutely no effect on the average healthy person due to the cilia in your lungs.” This was in direct response to CandidGamera’s assertion that “even one molecule is too much.” I was simply pointing out that he has a natural defense system against the apparent minor amount of SHS he’s going to encounter.
[/QUOTE]

Smoking also kills the cilia, rather than the cilai acting as some sort of defence.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2x_Questions_About_Smoking_Tobacco_and_Health.asp
"Normally, tiny hair-like formations (called cilia) beat outward and sweep harmful material out of the lungs. Cigarette smoke slows the sweeping action, so some of the poisons in the smoke remain in the lungs and mucus remains in the airways. When a smoker sleeps, some cilia recover and begin working again. After waking up, the smoker coughs because the lungs are trying to clear away the poisons that built up the previous day. The cilia stop working after long-term exposure to smoke. Then the smoker’s lungs are even more exposed and susceptible than before, especially to bacteria and viruses in the air. "

http://lungdiseases.about.com/od/riskfacto2/a/causes_emphyse.htm
"Cigarette smoking destroys cilia and lung tissue, causing obstruction in the airways.Cigarette smoke can disrupt the sweeping actions of cilia that line the airways. Over time, cilia are destroyed, permanently impairing the airways’ ability to clear mucus and secretions. As cilia are destroyed and mucus begins to buildup, the cigarette smoke causes more production of mucus. Build up of mucus provides a perfect place for bacteria. This can lead to respiratory infections. "
**
Even SHS kills cilia.**

"Exposure to smoke hurts little lungs. Lining the breathing passages going to the lungs are millions of tiny filaments, called cilia, which wave back and forth to clear the normal secretions from the airways. Smoke paralyzes these cilia so that a baby is unable to clear these secretions. This leads to plugs of mucus blocking the airways, resulting in infections anywhere along the airways, including ear and sinus infections. Also, cigarette smoke is highly-allergenic, causing stuffy and blocked nasal passages that further compromise breathing. Studies show that children who are around cigarette smoke have two to three times more doctor visits because of respiratory infections. "

So, those cilia you think are the reason why CandidGamera shouldn’t be angry at smokers are one of the reasons he should be- your smoke is killing his cilia.

*Ignorant drug addicted * dumbass.

It is true that very minor exposure likely has very minor delitorious effects. But the cilia have nothing to do with it, and actually, they make things worse. Cilia are not a line of defense against smoke.

109

[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

IIRC it was said that 600-odd infants died from SIDS, due to secondhand smoke. How was that determination made? Were there no SIDS deaths at all in nonsmoking households?

Or some 3400 lung cancer deaths were attributable to secondhand smoke. How do they come up that figure? How do they determine that there were no other environmental factors involved?
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t read the study in question, but I seriously doubt the researchers reached their conclusions without controlling for confounding factors. That’s like Epidemiology 101 stuff.

If 75% of SIDS infants were raised in households in which at least one family member smoked, and nationwide prevalence of smoking in the home is only 33%, that is a good indication that second hand smoke may be attributal to this syndrome. I’m assuming that preliminary data showed this first relationship, and a second study was conducted in which potential confounders (such as nonsmoking-related environmental factors) were controlled for. If the follow-up study showed that, with all other things being equal, SIDS infants were X% more likely to be found in smoking households than nonsmoking ones, then you have enough evidence to say that second-hand smoke is a causative factor for SIDS.

110

OTOH, the study did come from the government…

111

[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
If you’re going to keep it legal to buy tobacco, then the rules around using it should at least be reasonable.
[/QUOTE]
Bug spray is legal. Is it OK for me to spray it into the air you breathe?

112

[QUOTE=you with the face]
I didn’t read the study in question, but I seriously doubt the researchers reached their conclusions without controlling for confounding factors. That’s like Epidemiology 101 stuff.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you. When you consider that cigarette smoking has a high concentration among poorer people, and tend to be less concerned with their overall health, it seems like they should be controlling for this before they can assert one causes the other. Or they could come up with a mechanism by which secondhand smoke causes SIDS, which I have not seen.

By the way, if you’re worried about passively inhaling dangerous particulate, it’s not the grungy low-class smokers you need to worry about, but the sophisticates with their wood stoves, firplaces and chimineas.

113

Fuck this shit, I’m moving to Eastern Europe where I can blow my cigarette smoke in the faces of disabled baby orphans with impunity. You fascists.

114

CG was probably engaging in a bit of hyperbole here, don’t you think? Whatever the case, people tend to be exposed to secondhand smoke and its toxic and carcinogenic elements repeatedly, building the risk. Walking through a cloud of cigarette smoke on rare occasions will have no to neglibible effect, but if you work in a building whose exits are closely ringed by smokers, your cumulative exposure goes way up (to cite just one example).
There is no way that respiratory cilia can remove all these toxic agents, some of which have been shown to damage cilia and reduce their protective effect.

Good editorial on the surgeon general’s report in USA Today 6/28. It’s interesting how things have changed since the last major report in the 1960s, when 42% of adult Americans smoked. Now only 21% of adults smoke. We can either let this increasingly small minority dictate our continued exposure to secondhand smoke hazards, or use the convincing evidence of risk to get cigarette smoke out of public places once and for all.

115

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Bug spray is legal. Is it OK for me to spray it into the air you breathe?
[/QUOTE]
Of course not. So, as my neighbor, if a single molecule of your bug spray gets into my yard, I’ll call the cops and have you arrested for attempted murder. Bug spray is poison, and spraying poison down my throat is murderous, therefore, if a droplet of it wafts over the hedge where I could breathe it, you’ve just tried to kill me.

Or, you know, there could be a reasonable set of rules regarding the use of bug spray. Rules that protect your neighbor from getting sprayed in the face, while allowing you to spray that wasp nest near the property line.

If bug spray is so dangerous that a bit of overspray from typical use is a real hazard to others, then you shouldn’t allow the shit to be sold in the first place.

116

[QUOTE=UncleBeer]
I see you’re in no danger of stumbling upon CandidGamera’s lost sense of proportion either. There are many laws which are necessary to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
[/quote]
What part of “promote the general welfare” do you not understand?

I see we’ve strayed from constitutional principles into Uncle Beer’s Way It Oughta Be Or Else, You Hypocrites. High dudgeon, but not much logic.

Regardless, you’re still ducking my original question. Do you support the hypocritical and dishonest attempt by the restaurant and bar lobby in Ohio to sneak through a constitutional amendment that will reverse years of progress on antismoking ordinances, under the pretense of limiting smoking?

117

[QUOTE=kambuckta]
Who’s said that?

:confused:
[/QUOTE]

I used to hear it all the time from a number of smokers in Monterey, in Davis, and plenty of smokers over here. I’m trying to come up with a clever saying in Korean that’s similar to “Ain’t just a river in Egypt” for them to ponder.

118

[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
Look for a new round of laws that make smoking the most difficult legal activity to partake in this side of shooting a firearm.
[/QUOTE]

Try to wrap your mind around this simple concept: just because something’s legal in one place doesn’t mean it’s legal in another. For example, smoking inside a government building isn’t legal in this county, although it’s legal to smoke outside of said building.

119

[QUOTE=SteveG1]
Just what we need. More “nanny government”. Maybe we need anti-jerk laws to lock up loud and obnoxious morons who feel some overpowering urge to stand right next to someone who is smoking. Just. Move. Away. From. Them.
[/QUOTE]

How about anti-jerk laws for those smokers who smoke. right. in. front. of. the. entrance. with. the. sign. that. says. “no. smoking. within. 100. feet.” and their given excuse? “But it’s raining!” Too. bad. Some of us non-smokers would dearly love to avail ourselves of entering a building through the door without having to walk through a cloud of tobacco smoke.

120

Why not try just not breathing? If you do it right, we’ll have one less anti-smoking whiner to listen to.